Here's why NVIDIA still hasn't launched the GeForce GTX TITAN-Z at the $2,999 price-point it so boldly announced at GTC 2014 - it's not worth its price by a long shot, at least not when stacked up against the Radeon R9 295X2, according to a review published by Hong Kong based print magazine E-Zone. In most tests, the two are evenly matched, with the R9 295X2 even outperforming it by a significant margin in some. In tests where the GTX TITAN-Z leads the R9 295X2, the lead isn't significant, at least nowhere close to justifying its price. The only way NVIDIA can sell the GTX TITAN-Z, if these numbers hold true, is by delivering on its 375W TDP figure.

The review finds that a system running a single GTX TITAN-Z draws 33W less power than the same system running two GTX 780 Ti cards in SLI, and 60W less power than the same system running a single R9 295X2 (tested at FireStrike Extreme load). Unless you plan on future-proofing yourself for the next decade, the lower power draw doesn't justify the $1,500 higher price. So what explains the delay in launching the GTX TITAN-Z? Either a redesign with higher clocks (and proportionately higher power draw), or development of faster drivers.

It's very important that this fails. They said the Titan was an experiment in price points, and unfortunately it sold well. Now they're trying to see just how far they can push it, which in this case is way too far for that performance.

The writing is on the wall, this card is probably going to be as fast if not faster than Titan-Z, and at half the price again, see boys and girls? this is the reason why we need a healthy AMD to bring the heat to Nvidia and create a competitive environment, at $1500 I would personally not buy this card, but you can bet the bean counters at the green team are at full alert mode trying to figure how to compete with this card at this price point, 780X2? Who knows.

Only suckers paid 1K Euros for 1 card, when a 300 Eu cheaper and faster card was released just a couple of months after...

Click to expand...

A couple months later? Pray tell me what card came out a few months after February of 2013? Nothing. The 780 came out in May and didn't outperform the Titan, and the 290/290x didn't come until October (8 months later). It was basically king of the hill for 8 months before anything challenged it.

A couple months later? Pray tell me what card came out a few months after February of 2013? Nothing. The 780 came out in May and didn't outperform the Titan, and the 290/290x didn't come until October (8 months later). It was basically king of the hill for 8 months before anything challenged it.

Click to expand...

Yup! Certain people don't understand this joke didn't make sense a year ago, and still doesn't make sense today, it was not until 290X was released in November 2013 that any stock card could beat Titan, let alone when heavily OCd and water cooled!

Granted 290X was almost half the price for all of 48hrs after its release, I'm glad I got my 290Xs at lower than retail value while some dumb suckers were caught paying north of $699 or $799 for them

Anyway, at $2999 Nvidia shot itself in the foot, I hope this knocks them back to their senses and the card is priced more reasonably or they invest on a better cooling solution...

A couple months later? Pray tell me what card came out a few months after February of 2013? Nothing. The 780 came out in May and didn't outperform the Titan, and the 290/290x didn't come until October (8 months later). It was basically king of the hill for 8 months before anything challenged it.

Click to expand...

Because no one actually bothered to challenge it? It was priced at 1k and R290X is what, half that price?

Only suckers paid 1K Euros for 1 card, when a 300 Eu cheaper and faster card was released just a couple of months after...

Click to expand...

No, many people sick of broken AMD crossfire drivers ditched dual 7970's and went with the fastest single gpu available. I'd class myself as a sucker for having bought 2 top line AMD cards that didn't properly work on many games at that time. The fact AMD have publicly stated the issue has been resolved for DX10/11 (and a very good job they have done, especially with Hawaii) shows it WAS an issue. So, no, Titan was not a Sucker's card. It brought me smooth, perfect game play which my AMD solution did not.

However, Nvidia lost the plot with Titan Z. They absolutely deserve scorn for such a terribly arrogant attempt at price manipulation. Not saying it's not a free market but the fact AMD have a far better option at half the price puts Nvidia to shame. The compute argument is also pretty lame. Hardware enabled but software crippled, Titan is not a bona fide compute card - it isn't complete in that sense. I'm sure it's missing ECC and other things.

They need to swallow their pride and knock it down to a dual Titan price point.

I don't get how some people defend this incredibly ultra hyper overpriced bs.
Not that i would buy a R9 295X2 either, but this card is just an even greater insult to one's intelligence...
I would buy a couple of R9 290/GTX 780 instead (in the remote case i wanted to have a crossfire/sli config.)

I find it sad and funny that NVidia has to re-think their dual Titan card release due to the fact that AMD's dual card offer came out first and their price to performance ratio versus what NVidia was thinking to price their card at makes them look greedy if nothing else. Their initial pricing of this card was absurd even after whatever success they realized from a highly priced Titan.

I agree that the 295X2 is overpriced. At this point in time I think the 290X and 290 should be $400 and $300 respectably. I blame the current market though on nVidia (Or their customers. Take your choice.). $1000 Titan, $700 780 non ti (when it was first released), $3000 Titan-Z, ... Hawaii forced them to adjust their prices, but not enough. I don't think the mining craze helped us any either not allowing for the natural degrading of prices.